From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LT2D1-00025y-9K for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:51:35 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 850F9E0539; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:51:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6350FE0539 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:51:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7D3664509 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:51:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -3.535 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.535 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rYI9yG90MuyH for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:51:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 438DF644B2 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:51:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1LT2Cj-0002mf-NS for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:51:17 +0000 Received: from c-98-215-178-6.hsd1.in.comcast.net ([98.215.178.6]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:51:17 +0000 Received: from reader by c-98-215-178-6.hsd1.in.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:51:17 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Harry Putnam Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Ext4 another thread Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:51:07 -0600 Organization: Still searching... Message-ID: <87bptol86c.fsf@newsguy.com> References: <87fxj0ljcy.fsf@newsguy.com> <1233343873.2842.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-98-215-178-6.hsd1.in.comcast.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:3K4KFdmQv198khlDuKYaA6SH3jY= Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: a2167a4d-f7cc-4158-adb5-d56d0fb77713 X-Archives-Hash: de51ad95a114f1cadd5ab115fb4e10ea Albert Hopkins writes: > Depending on your usage you might see significant improvements or hardly > any at all. Best way to know for sure is to try it out. Note however > that on ext4 journal checksums are *on* by default (and off on ext3 > iirc). So when you are comparing performance you should make that value > the same for both for a fair comparison. What about comparisons to reiserfs... any comments on that. Far as I've experienced it with reiserfs... it puts ext3 in the shade in most ways.